Rep. obstructionism or Dem. ineptitude ?

[Mal]

What is the problem in America? Democrats say the Republicans will do anything to stop Obama, including sabotaging the economy. Republicans are saying the country is broken because of the bailouts, stimulus, etc....

What do you thinK?

Please use cites where possible.

[Eist]

>Democrats say the Republicans will do anything to stop Obama

I just want to point out that it was the Republican Minority Leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell that said that it was the GOP's top priority was to beat Obama (not to improve the country).



If they stuck to this (and the number of filibusters used recently by the Republican Minority in the Senate to block legislation passing alludes to this:)

www.juicetheblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/cloture_votes1.png

then we could say that the Republican party is actively rejecting legislation intended to improve the country.

What we cannot say is whether this is a complete contrast of ideology as to how to improve the country, or whether this is a deliberate and systematic malicious attack on the Democratic Party and the citizens of the USA to increase the possibility that the next POTUS is Republican.

The problem is threefold. The first issue, which I think is pretty evident, is that American politics is like a Superbowl game. Two teams, a winner and a loser. But politics shouldn't be like this; it's not black and white. Citizens have varying viewpoints, and this is not represented in government. The second issue is money. 47% of congress members are millionaires:

abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/47-of-congress-members-millionaires-a-status-shared-by-only-1-of-americans/

For one, they are out of touch with everyday people. Secondly, corporations are able to buy policies that favour them. The Citizens United ruling has been a disaster because it effectively allows corporations to donate money to congress members in return to give them favourable policies. This is not governance for the people, this is governance for big business. Third, and related, is the inordinate power big-business lobbyists have over congress. The fact that lobbyists, whoa are so close to the members, can donate to political campaigns is a sham for the same reasons I highlighted above. These last two reasons feedback off each other, and it's corrupted the political process to a massive degree.

The fix is to 1) radically change the voting system. The two-party FPTP system is archaic and simply not working, 2) privately held money has no place in politics. Essentially we have big businesses deciding elections and then policy through political donations. The US must be one of the only "first-world" countries that does not have an electoral commission to oversee events in the political process, and it has made the entire process a farce.

[Mal]

Agreed. The item with McConnell especially smacks of partisan bickering and is an example of someone putting the party before the country. As I said in another post, Obama tried to reach across the aisle in the spirit of bipartisanship, but the Republicans slapped his hand away like spoiled, insolent children.

And using the links you posted as evidence, as well as the fact that the Republicans took the debt ceiling hostage nad were only too happy to do it:

(http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/04/mitch-mcconnell-admits-that-republicans-took-america-hostage/)

I'm forced to conclude that the Republicans are NOT interested in helping out the average American, but more focused on getting the White House back.

Even more stupefying are comments by John Boehner, who says that Romney is behind in Ohio because of the improving economy there:

www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/09/boehner-kasich-improving-ohio-economy-are-why-romney-136295.html

Of course, he says that Governor Kasich, A Republican, is why the economy is doing better. But what's scary is that he is "blaming" the improving economy for Romney's fate there. So this tells me that the Republicans would rather see the economy fail, if it means they'll get the White House back.

[Mutanatia]

It is both:

Consider this:
When Obama went into office, he had a lot of ideas that the Republicans would agree with--in general (Healthcare reform, tax reform, the debt, the need for a budget, etc.). Yet, when he proposed all of them, the Republicans categorically said "no." Even healthcare reform received just a handful of Republican votes. This is not "bipartisan" in any shape or form.

But then, consider Obama. He proposes a budget that the House and Senate laugh at and can't get tax reform done. He then goes out and gets a deal with the GOP for a new debt ceiling--then turns around and wants more cuts and the GOP again laughs at him.

The main reason I think why this situation is screwed up is because of one simple thing: When the President handed healthcare reform to the Congress, he pretty much went along with what THEY wanted, and not really what HE wanted. He was even quoted about other deals (I think the healthcare reform as well) saying "This isn't what I want; but it's the best I'm going to get." Congress now laughs at him and assumes that he can be stepped on. The reason is because, throughout history, there has always been a power struggle between Congress and the President. Congress can't get a bill passed? Well, okay, how about they strip funding for a given war out from under the President's feet (in the past, not really now)? On in the case of healthcare, they can easily just yank the funding from it. Thus and therefore, in giving Congress pretty much what it has wanted for the first few months, Obama is already on losing territory. And there doesn't seem like there's a way to recover from it >.<

[Siple]

I see the main cause of our issues as the fact that parties have been allowed to become so strong. The presidential system's style of legislature is ill-suited to partisanship, in part because of the check and balance relationship with the independent executive. Party domination of politics is what makes a parliamentary democracy work, but simply creates pitfalls in the presidential system.

[Eist]

I'm not sure what you are suggesting as an alternative. The two parties are in one sense very powerful by virtue of being the only two parties. On the other hand, we see that in other countries (Australia, New Zealand, through Scandanavia, Netherlands, Germany) that have multiple parties contesting and sitting in seats of government, the US government is actually relatively week, and the states hold a relatively more powerful role (many of these countries mentioned are even unicameral).

So, yea, I'm not sure on your point of view: if the first, I think you are right but your arrow is misdirected, and if the second, I think this is not correct as evidenced by other functioning governments (and the plethora of non-functioning state governments).

[Ad Infinitum]

Re: Original question... probably both.

It's a pretty desperate election for both sides. A Romney administration would be devastating for the whole planet, but no one knows what Obama would do in a second term with no re-election to think about.

At least, that's what the NRA is leading me to believe. Apparently they have insider knowledge that Obama's going to ban everything from air rifles to firecrackers as soon as he's re-elected.

[Mal]

I won't bother speaking to the NRA, because they always amp up the fear when a Dem gets in office. The Assault Weapons Ban was a joke and every Democrat knows that supporting the renewal of it is basically a fast way out of office.

As to Obama's next term: He REALLY needs to take the gloves off if he wants to get anything done. There was an interesting article in Roll Call today in which Congress is realizing that voters will decide who will have a say in the whole fiscal cliff scenario:

www.rollcall.com/issues/58_24/Voters-Will-Likely-Resolve-Fiscal-Cliff-217774-1.html

I think that if Obama is re-elected, the logjam will finally be broken.

One other thing: I've been watching Mitt Romney since he was elected Governor of my state, and I'm convinced that if he had come out after the primaries and said who he really was and what he really stood for, he would be in a lot better shape in the polls.

In a year like this, it should be easy for the challenger to take out the incumbent, but because of his ineptitude and his inability to take advice, instead of being his election to win, it's Obama's election to lose.

[Siple]

Sept 24, 2012 0:07:04 GMT -5 Eist said:

I'm not sure what you are suggesting as an alternative. The two parties are in one sense very powerful by virtue of being the only two parties. On the other hand, we see that in other countries (Australia, New Zealand, through Scandanavia, Netherlands, Germany) that have multiple parties contesting and sitting in seats of government, the US government is actually relatively week, and the states hold a relatively more powerful role (many of these countries mentioned are even unicameral).

So, yea, I'm not sure on your point of view: if the first, I think you are right but your arrow is misdirected, and if the second, I think this is not correct as evidenced by other functioning governments (and the plethora of non-functioning state governments).

You don't seem to understand. The countries you listed are parliamentary states. The US uses the presidential system. What I am saying is that while partisanship is how parliaments are designed to work, it has historically only been troublesome in our government to use a party system. I think that a way to elect congresspeople and the president should be developed that does not involve party affiliation.

[Mal]

The problem there being that you can't ban political parties.

[Eist]

There is really little difference between the presidential and parliamentary systems. I don't think it's sufficient to say that "it has historically only been troublesome in our government to use a party system" (when, and why was this the specific cause of issues?) to say that it's therefore not an option.

If we can't compare to parliamentary systems, you can't really compare it to much at all. The differences between other first-world parliamentary systems (Brazil, Argentina, South Korea) are larger than the afore mentioned nations.

Political parties have their purpose, although, again, in the US, I think this is broken, too. Only the elite upper-class can be a politician here now.

[Siple]

Consider this:

In a parliamentary government, the executive will always have the cooperation of the legislature to further their agenda because they more or less share theirs with the ruling party or coalition from which they are selected. This leads to efficient legislation. Maintenance of strict partisan boundaries is what makes the parliamentary system work.

In the United States' version of the presidential system, however, members of Congress were expected by the folks who designed the system to represent their electing polity more than they represent their party or ideology. I concede that the elimination of political parties is wrong, but point out that the system was designed by men who regularly utilized consensus-seeking measures in their conventions and legislatures rather than the solid party lines of the old world. When our parties in the US started to become more important to politicians than the locales they represent, gridlock in Congress became more commonplace. Note also that each president has a new legislature to deal with every other year, meaning no guarantee of cooperation and thus efficiency. Look at the last four years in the HoR.

[Isles of Nixon]

In many ways, we already have a parliamentary system in the sense that there is a majority legislative body that introduces measures and the other side automatically opposes those same measures and runs against them in the election. That's how Congress has been since 2009. Democrats proposed the stimulus, health care reform, Employee Free Choice Act. Republicans let them pass those bills because they had little say in the matter in the minority and decided to base their entire campaign against those policies. In the end, Republicans netted 63 seats in the House of Representatives, the most since 1948.

When it comes to obstructionism, what the American people prefer at the moment is a proper check on the president. They clearly believe he overstepped his bounds in the first 14 months of his presidency and made sure there was a proper check on the president. These same voters are not wild about the idea of a Republican president as based on the current polls for the presidency, but they're also not willing to give the Democrats complete control again - as the GOP is going to keep the House majority by a comfortable margin.

So if the president is re-elected, what can you expect? Well, I would imagine nothing. The president is going to want to go further to the left and the GOP House of Representatives will block him at every turn. In the end, a two-term Obama presidency will have been boiled down to 14 months out of 8 years where things actually got done, the only problem being that the things that got done were so far out of the mainstream that the American public put a sufficient check on his power.

And to ensure that no one thinks I'm unbiased, in the interest of full disclosure, I readily admit that I was a member of the team of dedicated individuals in our nation's capital that devoted two years of their life to retiring Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Now that the mission was completed in 2010, the mission is to ensure that we keep the gavel in John Boehner's hands.

[Anime Daisuki]

Sept 24, 2012 16:30:47 GMT -5 Ad Infinitum said:

Re: Original question... probably both.

It's a pretty desperate election for both sides. A Romney administration would be devastating for the whole planet, but no one knows what Obama would do in a second term with no re-election to think about.

At least, that's what the NRA is leading me to believe. Apparently they have insider knowledge that Obama's going to ban everything from air rifles to firecrackers as soon as he's re-elected.

Or start a war with China. He's already walking down that path with his Pivot to Asia.

[Siple]

Our Asia shift is most likely not about war with China. It is in neither the interests of the United States or China to go to war with each other- they're too interdependent. I believe that the strategic shift is to protect the integrity of shipping during an inevitable Chinese invasion of one of its neighbors. I would guess Vietnam, considering the upcoming launch of China's new carrier.

[Mal]

Astute and well thought out arguments, Nix. But I disagree somewhat.

Sept 29, 2012 23:41:24 GMT -5 Isles of Nixon said:

In many ways, we already have a parliamentary system in the sense that there is a majority legislative body that introduces measures and the other side automatically opposes those same measures and runs against them in the election. That's how Congress has been since 2009. Democrats proposed the stimulus, health care reform, Employee Free Choice Act.

I'll agree with you to a point here. I think the loss of all those seats was attributable to the President focusing too much on health care reform and not enough on economic recovery. He should have tabled health care until after the economy was improving more than it was. I voted for him and I thought that this was bad policy. Had he made the economy priority one, and said "health care needs to be fixed but it will have to wait," you would have seen a different result in the mid terms in 2010.

When it comes to obstructionism, what the American people prefer at the moment is a proper check on the president. They clearly believe he overstepped his bounds in the first 14 months of his presidency and made sure there was a proper check on the president. These same voters are not wild about the idea of a Republican president as based on the current polls for the presidency, but they're also not willing to give the Democrats complete control again - as the GOP is going to keep the House majority by a comfortable margin.

I'll give you that the election of all those Republicans, 80 of whom were self described Tea Partiers, was a reaction to his priorities. However, there is evidence to show that the opposition made getting him out of office their own priority. Mitch McConnell in as much said so. So he could have came up with a program that would have created 10 million jobs and wiped out the deficit in 2 years and they still would have opposed him. Note that this is opinion based on their behavior toward the debt ceiling, aid to states who were laying off cops and teachers and fire fighters (blocking the American jobs Act), and jumping on the bandwagon bashing government. And note that for McConnell this is the height of hypocrisy, because he thought government was pretty O.K. when his wife was Secretary of Labor during the Bush Administration from 2002 through 2009.

So if the president is re-elected, what can you expect? Well, I would imagine nothing. The president is going to want to go further to the left and the GOP House of Representatives will block him at every turn. In the end, a two-term Obama presidency will have been boiled down to 14 months out of 8 years where things actually got done, the only problem being that the things that got done were so far out of the mainstream that the American public put a sufficient check on his power.

I don't know. I think there's already evidence that the House is going to acquiesce if he's re-elected. Consider:

www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-retreat-on-taxes-likely-if-obama-wins/2012/09/20/49948828-0330-11e2-9b24-ff730c7f6312_story.html

Moreover, if he's elected with any kind of mandate and the opposition loses an appreciable amount of seats, I think they're going to have to work with the White House as much as they won't want to. Otherwise, they could lose the mahority in the House in 2014.

And to ensure that no one thinks I'm unbiased, in the interest of full disclosure, I readily admit that I was a member of the team of dedicated individuals in our nation's capital that devoted two years of their life to retiring Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Now that the mission was completed in 2010, the mission is to ensure that we keep the gavel in John Boehner's hands.

Interesting. Would it surprise you if I told you I used to be a registered Republican? I was in the Marines and when I got out in 1986, I registered as a Republican and voted with them in every election. But they began to lose my support when they began to identify with the religious right.

The Republican Party of my Uncle and Grandfather and Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon was one that stood for a strong military, self reliance, privacy in ones own affairs, and one that understood the value of some government spending (The Interstate Highway System was a Republican backed project) but also that a lot of government social programs were over-funded and didn't work.

As for myself, I disagree with the notion of a single payer health care system, and I think the Heritage Foundation's model, which is basically what the ACA is, is the correct way to address the problem. Romney thought so to when he signed it into state law here.

I'm AGAINST blocking any idea just because it isn't a Republican idea and I'm disappointed that the party leadership has allowed itself to be co-opted by the Tea Party. This is what happened to the Dems in the 60s when the ultra-liberals co-opted the Democratic Party and it wasn't until Clinton came along that the party began to regain its identity.

[Isles of Nixon]

Let's go through your points, Malecia.

You claim health care reform was the biggest attributable factor to the GOP gains in the House and claim if the Democrats had run on an economic message, the results would have been different. Well, the GOP would've still netted the 40 seats necessary to retake the House. The stimulus produced merely a fraction of the jobs it claimed to have created or should have created. In one district, a Democratic candidate foolishly used the White House talking points in February 2009 that said the stimulus would create more than 1,000 jobs in that particular congressional district. In August 2010, according to the White House's own stimulus website, only 88 jobs had been created. The GOP incumbent made an ad highlighting the difference and the Democrat went from almost winning in 2008 to getting blown out by a 12 point margin in 2010, mainly because of that ad.

Next, do not always believe what you read in the newspapers especially when certain members of Congress are quoted. I won't reveal trade secrets in an open forum, but I can tell you the WaPo story's sources have an ulterior motive in the quotes they gave and it has nothing to do with the tax battle either. They're just crying over spilled milk from years ago.

In our worst case scenario, the Democrats pick up 5 seats. In our best case scenario, the GOP picks up 4-5 seats, so either way, it won't be an "appreciable" amount. I can tell you from the horse's mouth, the GOP will not negotiate with the president regardless of any mandate. He does not have a blank check with the House and if he wants something done, he has to work with us, we do not have to work with him, especially when we were elected as a direct response to his policies. If re-elected, it will have little to do with his policies than it will have to do with just a better turnout operation, that's the difference between the two offices. Legislative elections are more indicative of the people's response to the president's policies because they're the most local - in 435 separate areas, 700,000 people can vote for their representative to represent them in Congress. It's done by popular vote and not the electoral college. The House has always been the best barometer.

You certainly won't see me aligning myself with the extremes of the party but in the lesser of two evils, having a pragmatic Speaker of the House in John Boehner is 1,000 times better than Nancy Pelosi again and if it means having to throw a bone to the Tea Party every now and again, so be it, that's the cost of doing business.

[Mal]

Sept 30, 2012 16:09:00 GMT -5 Isles of Nixon said:

Let's go through your points, Malecia.

You claim health care reform was the biggest attributable factor to the GOP gains in the House and claim if the Democrats had run on an economic message, the results would have been different. Well, the GOP would've still netted the 40 seats necessary to retake the House. The stimulus produced merely a fraction of the jobs it claimed to have created or should have created. In one district, a Democratic candidate foolishly used the White House talking points in February 2009 that said the stimulus would create more than 1,000 jobs in that particular congressional district. In August 2010, according to the White House's own stimulus website, only 88 jobs had been created. The GOP incumbent made an ad highlighting the difference and the Democrat went from almost winning in 2008 to getting blown out by a 12 point margin in 2010, mainly because of that ad.

I agree the stimulus should have been managed better. In fact, I think that was the point I was making in that had the Administration not gotten wrapped up in health care until the economy improved, they wouldn't have lost the House.

As to the House District you're commenting on, all I can say is that if the challenger used those talking points without checking the data sets first, he/ she deserved to lose. Anyone who runs on untrue facts deserves to get their hat handed to them.

Next, do not always believe what you read in the newspapers especially when certain members of Congress are quoted. I won't reveal trade secrets in an open forum, but I can tell you the WaPo story's sources have an ulterior motive in the quotes they gave and it has nothing to do with the tax battle either. They're just crying over spilled milk from years ago.

If you're saying that Senator McConnell didn't say that:



I don't hold ill will toward him for his feelings and at least he's honest, which is more than I can say for a few people from both sides of the aisle. But to me, he's saying that instead of finding compromise on these issues, he is refusing to work with the White House at all. And that is certainly his prerogative, but really, is it at all good for the country?

I can tell you from the horse's mouth, the GOP will not negotiate with the president regardless of any mandate. He does not have a blank check with the House and if he wants something done, he has to work with us, we do not have to work with him, especially when we were elected as a direct response to his policies.

O.K. I'll ask you straight out. What has the President refused to work with you on?

If re-elected, it will have little to do with his policies than it will have to do with just a better turnout operation, that's the difference between the two offices.

That and the refusal of Mitt Romney to listen to those in his own party who tried to get him to run a different type of campaign. Romney should have came out from the start and said "This is who I am" instead of running around the country and trying to fit in everywhere. His constant shifts from one position to the next is absolutely killing him. His latest twist: "I think people know I identify with the middle class because I signed the health care bill in Massachusetts."

Seriously? The one that he said was the model for the nation? The one ABM adopted? That you said you'd repeal on day one (I guess he left out the part about Congress repealing it and him signing it)?

www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-obama-healthcare-law-20120926,0,240398.story

Legislative elections are more indicative of the people's response to the president's policies because they're the most local - in 435 separate areas, 700,000 people can vote for their representative to represent them in Congress. It's done by popular vote and not the electoral college. The House has always been the best barometer.

I agree that "all politics is local." But the Republicans in this election were trying to make this a referendum on Obama's policies. With a better candidate, they might be running ahead right now. Even Robert Reich said that the Republicans should have taken Obama out early and with relative ease.

As to the popular vote point you're making, I'm unclear as to what you're saying. Are you saying that the President's successes or failures translate down ballot?

You certainly won't see me aligning myself with the extremes of the party but in the lesser of two evils, having a pragmatic Speaker of the House in John Boehner is 1,000 times better than Nancy Pelosi again and if it means having to throw a bone to the Tea Party every now and again, so be it, that's the cost of doing business.

I disagree on this. The ultra-liberals in the Democratic Party thought that the election of Clinton and now Obama meant that their agendas would be put in place. Happily, their goals have for the large part been cast aside as too extreme. Clinton knew that in 1992, and that's why he was unpopular with the Ralph Nader crowd, as was Gore.

I don't think the Tea Party has to be placated at all. On the contrary, I would like to see the G.O.P. return to the way it used to be under people like Christie Todd Whitman, Bill Weld, and Paul Cellucci.

Granted, I think many of the Tea Party folks were ticked about bailouts and health care reform, but their unwillingness to compromise with members of their own party tell me they're just the flip side of the extreme leftists who think that anything less than complete support of their agenda is a wholesale rejection.

All things considered and comparatively speaking, this is a nation of centrists. Pragmatism and well thought out solutions to problems are what we need to keep moving forward. Extremism from either side is unnecessary and counterproductive.

[Mutanatia]

^Nixon is right. Objectively speaking, Obama has not working with the Congress on anything, nor has Congress worked with him on anything. I can recall at least one instance when they had a deal (Was that the debt ceiling incident, Nixon), but Obama turned around and wanted more spending cuts (if I remember) added to the deal. Republicans said, "no."

Also, Nixon, is the above characteristic of Obama on some deals? If so, can you provide links to when that happened to refresh my memory? If it is, then I'd say he has a tendency to self-sabotoge to not only end a deal, but also to blame the GOP for this coming election. (again, objective: I'd say the same thing if Bush had the same issues with the Dems, but he didn't to the best of my knowledge, even passing TARP I. -- or I think the very first stimulus was called "TARP I."

[Mal]

Actually the debt ceiling crisis was very complex and in the end, a lot of Republicans voted for the Budget Control Act of 2011 and a lot of Democrats voted against it. It was in no way a vote up and down party lines.

It was probably the first real compromise between both parties, both houses of Congress and the White House since the 2010 mid-term elections.

[Mutanatia]

Wasn't the Budget Control Act. IT was something that wasn't passed at first because Obama tried to renege on the deal.

[Anime Daisuki]

Sept 30, 2012 12:47:59 GMT -5 Siple said:

Our Asia shift is most likely not about war with China. It is in neither the interests of the United States or China to go to war with each other- they're too interdependent. I believe that the strategic shift is to protect the integrity of shipping during an inevitable Chinese invasion of one of its neighbors. I would guess Vietnam, considering the upcoming launch of China's new carrier.

You are oversimplying and guessing wrong. China does not wish to invade it's neighbours, however, it wants to be the region's top dog; just as the US have been the de-facto leader of the entire American continent (north and south) since the 1850s. China wants to regain it's place in that part of the world. A study of history will tell us that China operated on a tribulory state- client stage system with it's neighbors for hundreds of years before the death of the Qing Empire. China's goal, I believe is to go back to some form of that system.

Note this is not the same as imperialism. Because as of right now, one can argue that the US essentially has the same relationship with the rest of the world save China and Russia, and a few countries which it calls "rogue states" that is, the US dominates the rest and the rest accepts US leadership, culturally, politically, economically, and militarily. Those nations that dare to stand up to the US are shunned, and at worst, invaded and has it's government toppled.

And once again, the often painted picture in the Western press is that Southeast Asia welcomes the US's leadership through the new Pivot to Asia policy. This is abit one-sided. While that is true in the case of the Philiippines and Vietnam. Most of the countries here such as SIngapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Laos, etc, are very wary of the new US initiative. In the words of the Indo President -- what we want is the US as a partner, not a leader. What we don't want is two giants treat the region as grounds for power play, which could lead to an arms race and increased risk for confrontation.

[Mal]

Sept 30, 2012 20:43:26 GMT -5 Mutanatia said:

Wasn't the Budget Control Act. IT was something that wasn't passed at first because Obama tried to renege on the deal.

O.K. well you cited the debt ceiling and that was resolved with the Budget Control Act of 2011. Can you be more specific?

[Mutanatia]

^ I'm talking about the event before that Act. Boehner and Obama had a deal. But then Obama wanted to change it. I believe that that is what led to the so called "fiscal cliff" option (forget what it was called) that says, if we don't get this done, massive cuts in defense and welfare.

(BTW, the Debt Ceiling wasn't resolved as they had to raise it again recently)

[Cerb]

There is a violent schism in the US where neither side wish to play ball. you have Republicans who stand opposed to a great deal of anything proposed by the Democrats, partly out of ideological grounds and partly because the Democrats aren't willing to forge a bi-partisan agreement.

At least I se no ground being given on either side of the house. You have the democrats who seem to prefer the notion of raising taxes on the rich to fix all the problems, and Republicans who want to cut government spending down to the bare essentials.

Note that those bare essentials are the sticking point as what Reps call unnecessary spending Dems call essential programs.

The system is fundamentally broken.

The big problem is attitude and I'm mindful of Nancy's comment regarding the health care reform act:


With an attitude like that, who'd want to try and work with her?

I'm not certain the Republicans would deliberately torpedo everything just to try and seize the big chair, at the cost of America down the crapper. It's frankly illogical and while I don't dispute the remark was made, it seems so reckless that I have difficulty swallowing it.

So, as my dear old ma would put it. It's 6 of one and half a dozen of another.

[Mutanatia]

Oct 1, 2012 15:06:35 GMT -5 Cerb said:

There is a violent schism in the US where neither side wish to play ball. you have Republicans who stand opposed to a great deal of anything proposed by the Democrats, partly out of ideological grounds and partly because the Democrats aren't willing to forge a bi-partisan agreement.

^That's my point. IT's not a "Republican" thing or a "Democratic" things. It's a bunch of children going "He started it first...noo...! He started it!" -.-

[Mal]

I will say that as a registered Democrat, I wasn't at all happy when Pelosi became Speaker. She is the personification of the far laft that co-opted Democratic politics for 25 years, stating in the late 1960s.

Up until then, there were still a lot of Southern Democrats. I think the Dems finally got the picture in 1984 when they only carried one state, and even that wasn't by a lot.

[Isles of Nixon]

Firstly, I'm not denying what McConnell said, he clearly said it and in many ways, what he was saying was in the betterment of the country. The American people saw what happened when you gave Democrats control of everything - a complete disaster ranging from a jobless stimulus that did little to stimulate our economy but helped out plenty of employers in China and Korea, to a complete government takeover of our health care system, which is why the American people sent a clear message in the midterm elections.

When it comes to the president's unwillingness to work with the Republicans, it comes from the fact that to date, the House GOP has passed more than 30 jobs bills and the White House, if interested in actually getting something done, should have gotten behind some of the jobs related bills and had Harry Reid bring them up for a vote. He's the president, he should show some leadership.

Nationally, yes, the GOP is running the race based off Obama's policies and in some southern congressional districts as well. But in other races, we're keeping it to local issues. As for what I said regarding the House elections being a better barometer, it's because on the national level, you're faced with the electoral college. In places like New York, the GOP could make additional gains in the House but at the end of the day, because of the urban areas, the president will carry the state's electoral votes and yet see more House districts flip from Democrat to Republican, which is the bigger story. That goes for other states as well, where the president will carry the electoral votes because of the urban areas, but where it matters - i.e. the House races, Republicans will make gains there. However, some House races are anomalies. Case in point, look to Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Both contain one House seat each that may flip from Dem to GOP because of scandal-tainted incumbents, but we'll see.

And I agree, extremism is counterproductive but in midterm elections, when most of these folks got elected, whether it was 2006 or 2010, it was because that's a low turnout election year and the fringes always vote and they like voting for their kind of candidate. Only way you fix that is by increasing voter turnout in non-presidential election years.

[Siple]

Oct 1, 2012 1:12:15 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

You are oversimplying and guessing wrong. China does not wish to invade it's neighbours, however, it wants to be the region's top dog; just as the US have been the de-facto leader of the entire American continent (north and south) since the 1850s. China wants to regain it's place in that part of the world. A study of history will tell us that China operated on a tribulory state- client stage system with it's neighbors for hundreds of years before the death of the Qing Empire. China's goal, I believe is to go back to some form of that system.

I contest that China cannot go without invading its neighbors. They are rapidly losing its arable lands to desertification and urbanization. Turning back desertification is impossible, and the population always continues to grow, so the only way to keep food production at a level that can sustain the Chinese people without becoming any more dependent on foreign powers (especially the United States, the world's bread basket) is to expand. You do make a compelling argument with regard to the tribulory system, though. I'll give it some thought.

[Anime Daisuki]

You do realize that China has a one-child policy that's been in place for 30 over years right? While the population is large, it is not growing as fast as you think it is. The population pyramid is now more or less straight from the middle downwards. Going by fertility rates, China scores well below the US, which averages 2-3 children:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Fertility_Rate

Also, there's a generally well accepted theory that as countries grow more prosperous and their middle class grows bigger, child fertility rates will drop. This is because middle class families tend to want better quality of life for themselves by having less children. They are also better educated, and better educated people tend to be more receptive of contraceptives and family planning. As China grows richer, it will grow leaner just like Old Europe did.

If going by your argument that nations with growing populations will inevitably invade, then you might as well say India would invade because India has no family planning whatsover and will soon overtake China as the most populous country.

www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2011/06/india_to_replace_china_as_worl.html